Pages

Monday, February 28, 2011

In George W.'s two terms in office as President of the United States, the United States faced many hardships, and a vast majority of causalities related to these hardships were a result of this President taking his soldiers into harms way. In many cases, the actions of this President were premeditated. Prior to 911 in less than 90 days in office, President George W. along with England carried out bombing raids in Iraq, in an attempt to disable Iraqi's defense network. George W. was the aggressor. Seven months later, Osama bin Laden retaliated against the United States, as the world terrorists took aim at the United States. 911 became reality, and now George W. felt he now had grounds to continue his war. George W. misled the country in a war on March 20th, 2003 as the Iraqi invasion began. Known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, the major battles lasted until May 1, 2003, the government of Iraq was toppled out in just 21 days of major combat operations.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Parts of this report is from the New York Times by Michiko Kakutani publiched on November 3rd, 2010 called 'In Bush Memoir, Policy Interests With Personality' and reflects the views of the author of this blog.

In a serious attempt to criticize the book "Decision Points" in a good light, I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible due to the light of history and what is shared in the book by the previous Republican President to be able to give George W. any high marks for the works called his 'memoir'. It is nothing more than a dogged work of reminiscence by an author not naturally given to introspection. The memoir lacks the emotional precision and evocative power of his wife Laura's book, "Spoken From the Heart," that was published in 2007. After reading George Bush's memoirs, there are some touchy private moments with him and his family, but at the end, you will understand that this is not a book about George W's heart. The tone of the book is more casual than any past 'memoir of ANY U.S. President. It starts out with what you might consider an evangelical, 12-step confession, for example "Could I continue to grow closer to the Almighty or was alcohol becoming by god?", not to sidestep away from the off-color jokes. He portrays himself as a regular guy.
Along the way Mr. Bush acknowledges various mistakes. On his administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina he says, “As leader of the federal government, I should have recognized the deficiencies sooner and intervened faster.” On Iraq he says he regrets that “we did not respond more quickly or aggressively when the security situation started to deteriorate after Saddam’s regime fell,” that “cutting troop levels too quickly was the most important failure of execution in the war,” and that he still has “a sickening feeling every time” he thinks about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Still, he insists that “removing Saddam from power was the right decision”: “for all the difficulties that followed, America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD and supporting terror at the heart of the Middle East.”

In the course of this book Mr. Bush hops and skips over many serious issues raised by critics, including the cherry-picking of intelligence by administration hawks in the walk up to the invasion of Iraq; the push for aggrandized executive power by the White House in the war on terror; and the ignoring of advice from the military and the State Department on troop levels and postwar planning.

The former president does not address the role that the decision to divert resources to the war in Iraq played in the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, instead arguing that “the multilateral approach to rebuilding, hailed by so many in the international community, was failing.” He tries to play down the problems of Guantánamo Bay, writing that detainees were given “a personal copy of the Koran” and access to a library among whose popular offerings was “an Arabic translation of ‘Harry Potter.’ ” And he asserts that “had I not authorized water-boarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked.”

In summation, after reading the book, I was saddened to realize that this man actually was our 43rd President, after knowing what I've learned not by just reading his memoir, but by coming in contact with so many other news articles. What was this man thinking during his two terms in office? What was the country thinking allowing this man to wage wars, and demonstrate his own forms of terrorism to the international community. Wake up people. This man IS responsible for thousands of American deaths, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
George W. vowed to topple terrorism. Was he successful? Absolutely not, yet he takes credit for not allowing terrorists to attack the United States since 911. Is he taking the blame for all the American deaths during his watch? But he fails to realize that it was because of his lack of listening to his own intelligence agencies, that this country was attacted on 911 and thousands of people were innocently killed on American soil. And then, why attack Iraq, and spend people lives in a war to topple a dictator named Sadaam Hussein because you have strong proof that he had weapons of mass distruction. Why not go after the man known to be in Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden, who is the number 1 terrorist and responsible for the 911 attacks? What was Bush thinking? We are gridlocked in a war in Iraq, with a U.S. President who vowes to leave Iraq soon and now is taking the heat for George W.'s mistakes.

Friday, February 25, 2011

As an avid watcher of the news, I must say upfront that I have definitely missed the straight talk reporting by someone who speaks from the gut, no more than MSNBC's Mr. Keith Olbermann. Immediately below is his transcript, along with links to two videos that make up the transcript by Keith Olbermann displayed below, as he went through one of his liberating rampages on his show on May 15, 2008. The topic, of course the one and only Mr. George W. Bush. You have to love Keith Olbermann, for his outright candid, straight-talk reporting from the heart, but at the same time, you need to listen closely to truly understand how this person called the 43rd President of the United States lasted for 8 years in office, got under his skin.

Questions to Bush in BLUE
Olbermann comments in Black
Responses by Bush in RED

Mr. Keith Olbermann.....speaks..

Finally tonight as promised, a special comment, on two topics allot of us had foolishly thought and not have naively hoped we would not again would have to address, and a third topic nobody thought a president would ever seriously mention in public, unless perhaps he was just hit in the head with something, and was not in full possession of his faculties. How he expressed his empathy for the families of the dead in Iraq by giving up golf!! The president has resorted to the sleaziest fear mongering and mass manipulation of an administration of a public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center where he and Mr. McCain work. Mr. Bush had predicted that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to an another attack on the United States". This ludicrous, infuriating, holly-er than now, and most importantly boneheadedly wrong statement came yesterday during an interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo. The question was phrased as follows..

"If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"And the President replied, "Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is -- it's bigger than Iraq -- it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."

Mr. Olbermann... Mr. Bush, at long last has it not dawned on you that the America that you have now created includes cold blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives. There are those in or formally in your employ who yet may be charged some day with war crimes. Through your haze of self congratulation and self pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve YOUR political objectives. This ideological struggle you speak of Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country. It is a struggle for Americans that cherish freedom, ours and everybody elses, and Americans like you sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like 'Patriot Act' is a brand name or 'Protect America' is a brand name.
Wait, there's more. you also said"Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand -- and they will be defeated."They made no stand in Iraq sir, you allowed them to assemble there. As certainly if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's pharisaical post-invasion strategy of"They'll greet us as liberators", and as certainly if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists, in another country was provided by your government's pharisaical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infrastructure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American vice-royalty. Enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir... Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush. It was a Yahoo user who brought up a second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed or punted or gotten up and left the room claiming that he heard Dick Cheney calling him.

Do you feel, asked an ordinary American that you were misled on Iraq?

Bush's Response:"I feel like -- I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, "mislead" is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional -- I don't think so, I think there was not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."

Flawed... You Mr. Bush and your tragically know-it-all minions through out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons. You Mr. Bush, threw out every person who even suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality based intelligence needed to be listened to and damn fast. You Mr. Bush, are responsible for how intelligence communities all around the world shared the same assessment. you and the sick-a-vance you dredged up put behind the most important steering wheel in the world. Propagated, palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world, and punished everybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad. And you Mr. Bush threw under the bus all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later just to point out how much a self fulfilling proficy you had embraced and adopted this country's policy, in-lu of say 'common sense'. The fiasco of pre-war intelligence sir is YOUR fiasco. You should build a great statue of yourself, turning a deaf ear to the warnings of the realists, while you were shone embracing the three card monte dealers, like Richard Pearl and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. That would be a far more fitting to your legacy Mr. Bush, and this presidential library that you are constructing is a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might claim was built by weapons of mass destruction, because there will be just as many inside your presidential library as there was inside Sadaam Hussein's Iraq.
Of course if there is one over riding theme to this presidents administration, it is the utter, always failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced wheels within wheels garbage heap, that that constituted his excuse for war.

"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"

"No, no, I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction"

"I was told by people they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein and of course, the political heat gets on, and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."

Mr. Bush.... You destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nations throat, when required by law, to verify that your evidence was accurate you simply re-submitted it with phrases mounting to"See, I done proved it"virtually written in the margins in crayon. You defied patriotic Americans to say the emperor has no clothes, only this time with the stakes as you and your mental dwarfs in your employ put it, be a mushroom cloud over an American city. And as a final crash of self indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderess deceit, has even begun to cost your political party seeming perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and last night Mississippi. You can actually say with a straight face sir, that the members of Congress, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes? Will you great the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency? And your legacy... 4000 Americans you were sent to protect are dead in Iraq with your own feeble and pathetic answer being, I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction.
Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solarplexes, his last re-opening of our wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership, or his judgement, but his very suitability to remain in office."Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?"

YES, began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history.

"Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Golf sir!! Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq. Do you think these families Mr. Bush, these lives blighted forever care about YOU playing GOLF? Do you think sir that they CARE about you? You Mr. Bush who let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show their solidarity with them, you gave up GOLF? Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance scam, profiteering morally and financially bankrupting war. Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't even give up talking about Iraq, a subject about which you have insensitively proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world. Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency. In your own words.. "Solidarity, as best as I can, is to stop a game"?That is the best you can ? Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up GOLF?!?!?
Golf..Golf and still it gets worse. It proves that the presidents unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick and a ball together was not even his own damned idea.

"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

"I Remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in Central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do."

Your one, tone deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't think of it yourself. The great Bushian sacrifice. An Army private looses a leg, a marine looses half of his scull, 4000 of their brothers and sisters loose their lives and you loose GOLF!!! And they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to do just that. If it's even true. Apart from your medical files which beautifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time, it is a coincidence no doubt the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Veera DeMayo at the U.N.and interrupted your round of golf was on August 19th 2003, and yet there is an Associated Press accounted you and photographs playing golf as late as Columbus day of that year, October 13th, two months later.

Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you. Six and a half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history through the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people. But the war in Iraq is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is not Mr. Bush about YOUR GRIEF, when American after American comes home in a box. It is not Mr. Bush what your adult brain has produced in the way of arronoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain succeeds you. The war in Iraq, your war Mr. Bush is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and parreneal thirsty corporations like Hallibert and Blackwater, and how you sent 4000 Americans to their deaths, FOR NOTHING!!!
It is not Mr. Bush about your golf game, and sir if you have any hopes that next January 20 will no be celebrated as a day of soul drenching heart felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end.
This last piece of advise. When somebody asks you sir about Democrats who must now pull this country back together, from the abyss you have placed us at, when somebody asks you sir about the cooked books and faked threats that you have voiced on a sincere and frightened nation, when somebody asks you sir about your gallant, noble, self abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to sooth the families of the war dead.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

President George W. in an attempt to have himself re-habilitate his character in time, wrote his memoirs called 'Decision Points', but because of the book, it may seem to be just a matter of time that the book may be responsible for him going into prison for crimes against humanity.

The following is a transcript of the video below, and I suggest that you read this very closely. If you don't believe what you read, just listen the video and then speculate of what may be the future of George W. Bush.

Here is the transcript of the video in its entirety.....

Policies changed significantly, especially during the George Bush era, especially following the 911 attacks. After staying out of the limelight since leaving office almost 2 years ago, America's 43rd President is now having his own say on his time in office. In his memoirs 'Decision Points', he reveals his thoughts on the most historic and contraversial parts of his presidency. Now to discuss those, let's now talk to the former Democrat member of Congress, Tom Andrews.

Thank you very much for joining us... Now Tom in his book, George Bush said that the invasion of Iraq was right, because it was about changing the regime, persuing weapons of mass destruction. What do you think about the strength of that case?

Answer by Tom Andrews:Well, there is no strength, I mean, you know it is rather extraodinary. Former President Bush was on national television last night here in the United States, and he said his lowest moment, the lowest of the low, as he described it, was when a rap artist, Kenya West, accused him about not caring about black people, during the Katrina debocle, and the failure of the U.S. government to respond to that hurricane disaster. When in fact, you have a war against Iraq, a violation of international law, an invasion that killed thousands of American soldiers, over 100,000 Iraqis, all to go after weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. And to make it worse, you had American soldiers, 700 of them lost their lives in Iraq, because in this war of choice, this administration didn't think it was important enough to provide them with the protective armor, that if they had it, they would be alive today. And in this interview, based on this book, the President said his lowest moment was when he was criticized by an American rap artist for his handling of the Katrina disaster. Um, I don't think that anyone buys this. The Iraq war, a vast number of Americans believe that now it was a tragic mistake, and the fact that it was done in a way that it was done, makes it even worse.

Well, he seems that he is trying to highlight this Katrina incident, and he admits to some of the mistakes made during his presidency, and this is appearently something that he has kept in his mind. Do you welcome his honesty on this, and why do you think he is bringing this up as his priority?

Answer by Tom Andrews: Well, I think what he is trying to do is to re-habilitate himself. and as we saw in the last election, members of his own political party, ran away from George W. Bush. He has a very low opinion rating, certainly one of the lowest, in fact THE lowest of opinion ratings from Americans of any president in modern American history, and I think he is trying to spin his administration and his legacy, perhaps to get a better judgement from historians that what the American people are giving him now. But even in those instances in which he admits wrong-doing, let's take Katrina for example, what he admits to doing wrong was not stopping in New Orleans on the flight back from his ranch in Texas from his vacation, on his way to Washington. That's what he thinks is his biggest mistake with respect to Katrina, and then telling the man in charge that he was doing a hell of a job. I mean, this doesn't even begin to recognize the fundamental failure of leadership, of competency, and of ability to set priorities that this administration failed to do in New Orleans, and certainly in Iraq, and to mention only two.

Ok, now let's go on to a very sensitive point on the interrogation of terror suspects. Bush says legal advisors told him that simulated drowning was legal, and he believes that it helped prevent terror attacks. And now do you agree that this method can be justified if it helps save lives?

Answer by Tom Andrews: No. First of all, it is illegal. You can get an attorney to say anything you want, but the fact of the matter is, it is illegal. Secondly, it violates international law, it violates the Geneva Convention, and thirdly, it puts American soldiers at risk. So when they find themselves, God forgive in enemy's hands, then they are faced with the prospect of the same treatment given to them, that George Bush was authorizing, given to those the United States brought into custody. So whether you look at it from the point of view of international law, or the point of view of the.......(The audio disappears at this point in the video. There were 17 seconds left to the video)

Monday, February 21, 2011

I guess the President had his reasons. In a story that surfaced on January 28th, 2011, George W. purposly left out his former press secretary Scott McClellan from his memoirs called 'Decision Points'. Why so? According to George W. he claims that "He was not a part of a major decision. This is a book about decisions," in an interview that George W. had with CSPAN. But the fact is that he was his Press Secretary from 2003-2006 and he vigorously defended George W. in his decision to fight in Iraq.
Maybe it's because George W. couldn't take punches himself. Just two years after leaving the Administration, Scott McClellan wrote his own memoir called "What Happened Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." Now doesn't the title tell all. It is a book which highly criticized how George W. ran his administration. I would imagine that there were not too many kind words in the book.
As proof of this, McClellan just about says that Bush's administration did deceive the American public which led to the invasion of Iraq. He said "his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Of course you may guess that I will critique these statements made by George W, and right from the start, George W. claims that his book was about decisions. Pardon me for mentioning, but I'm at a loss for words by that statement. What decisions? I read the book from cover to cover, more than once just to make sure I didn't miss any decisions. Yes there were some, but what the book demonstrates is that the President failed to make decisions that would keep terrorism from the United States, and it showed his indecision to act prior to the attack. He beat around the 'BUSH' sort of speaking on many points in his book.
In the first several dozen pages, he creates his character prior and then into the marriage with Laura. He highlights his decision to become an owner of 'the Texas Rangers' baseball team. He explains how while dating Laura that he was frequently 'drunk'. All of these were decisions that he made, but which one of them actually explains what he accomplished during his eight years in office as the 43rd President of the United States?! Give me a break.

George!! I would think that Scott McClellan's book would be more down to earth than your own book. I just might get more substance out of his book than yours.There must be a reason why you left Scott McClellan out of your book, other than just because you believed that the three years he served you as press secretary, that he was irrelevant. Maybe you need to be enlightened as to read what the job of Press Secretary does. Is he supposed to make critical decisions that a President should make? Should he advise you on policy, in the United States and abroad?

That is part of your job George W.

So what truly is the job of a Press Secretary of the President of the United States?

The main job of a Press Secretary is to be a spokesperson for the government administration. The Press Secretary is responsible for collecting information about actions and events within the president's administration and around the world, and interacting with the media, generally in a daily press briefing. The information includes items such as a summary of the President's schedule for the day, whom the president has seen, or had communication and the official position of the administration on the news of the day. He wasn't supposed to make the decisions, but he was to inform the American people of the Presidents actions, issues and policies of the administration. So yes, he didn't make any of the decisions, but he was part of the Bush Administration and you would think that he would have just a little bit of respect for that. Most likely, they parted ways in 2006 because he may have criticized George W. in what he was doing, for example, the way he was handling the war, and how he was promoting terrorism in his own way.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Were there videotapes of terror-suspect interrogations, which could implement George W. Bush for extreme torture to prisoners? The following document claims that there was, as a March 2009 CNN report shows that the CIA must have had something to hide. According to the report below, there were 92 videotapes made in 2002 of terror-suspect interrogations that were destroyed. They were ordered to be destroyed under the order of Jose Rodrigues, then head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, with approval from lawyers.

March 2, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA destroyed 92 videotapes of terror-suspect interrogations, according to a court document filed by the government on Monday. The disclosure marks the first time the specific number of tapes has been made public.

A former CIA officer says the destroyed tapes showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding.

The tapes were made in 2002 and showed the interrogations of two suspected al Qaeda leaders, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. According to former CIA officer John Kiriakou, some of the videos showed harsh interrogations, including the use of waterboarding, which is said to simulate drowning and is considered by most people to be a form of torture.

Government officials have said the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 at the orders of Jose Rodriguez, then head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, with the approval of NCS lawyers.

The tape destruction is under investigation by John Durham, a federal prosecutor.

The disclosure of the number of tapes involved came as part of a federal court proceeding in New York involving an American Civil Liberties Union motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court for destroying the tapes.

Durham had requested and received a stay on the ACLU motion while his investigation was under way.

Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin wrote in a letter to Judge Alvin Hellerstein that Durham had not requested a continuation of the stay after it expired February 28.

"The CIA can now identify ... 92 videotapes were destroyed," wrote Dassin.

He also told the court the CIA is collecting information describing each of the destroyed tapes, as well as written accounts of the tapes and the identities of the people who viewed or possessed the recordings. "The CIA intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs, Dassin wrote.

But the ACLU, in a written statement, said the government's letter proves the CIA is in contempt. "The large number of videotapes confirms the agency engaged in a systemic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order."

CIA spokesman George Little said the agency has cooperated with the Justice Department investigation.

"If anyone thinks it's agency policy to impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts," he said in response to the ACLU.

Then-CIA Director Mike Hayden wrote in a December 2007 memo to staff that the tapes were made as "an internal check" on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques and the decision to destroy them was made "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquires."

Hayden said there were detailed written notes on the interrogations.

The prosecutor's spokesman would not comment on the status of Durham's criminal investigation into the tape destruction.

"That investigation is ongoing so we are not commenting on any specific aspects of it," spokesman Tom Carson said.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

The following is an update presented on Sept 18, 2001, a year after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.

Online News Hour Update

Sept. 18, 2002, 2:15pm EDT

U.S. intelligence agencies provided "a modest, but relatively steady stream" of intelligence information that terrorist attacks inside the country were a possibility, a congressional investigator told lawmakers Wednesday.

Eleanor Hill, staff director for the joint House-Senate inquiry into alleged intelligence failures ahead of the Sept. 11 attacks, released a 30-page statement Wednesday that found information on possible terrorist strikes continued to filter through the nation's intelligence system in the months directly before the attacks.

Some of that information specifically mentioned potential attacks by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network -- the group the U.S. blames for the Sept. 11 strikes that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

But, Hill's statement said, details were spotty and sources were often questionable.

"They generally did not contain specific information as to where, when and how a terrorist attack might occur and generally are not corroborated by further information," Hill's statement said.

Hill's report details a July 2001 briefing for senior government officials that said a review of five months of intelligence information indicated "that [Bin Laden] will launch a significant attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks... The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests."

"Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning," it said.

Hill's report also said the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, reported at least 33 communications between May and July 2001 suggesting a "possible, imminent terrorist attack."

Such intelligence information dated back as far as 1998, Hill's report said, citing intelligence information in the fall of 1998 saying bin Laden's "next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it" and a separate dispatch warned of a bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York City and Washington, D.C. areas.

A joint Congressional hearing on the possible intelligence failures heard testimony Tuesday from members of Sept. 11 victims' groups urging the investigation into what the government knew before the attacks continue.

"Our intelligence agencies suffered an utter collapse in their duties and responsibilities leading up to and on September 11th," Kristen Breitweiser, founder of the September 11th Advocates group told the committee. "And it goes without saying that the examination of the intelligence agencies by this committee does not detract, discount or dismantle the need for a more thorough examination of all of these other culpable parties."

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the investigation was a "search for the truth, not to point fingers or to pin blame."

But Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said he thought the Sept. 11 attacks indicated a gap in U.S. intelligence efforts.

"We know now that our inability to detect and prevent the Sept. 11 attacks was an intelligence failure of unprecedented magnitude," he said. "Some people who couldn't seem to utter the words 'intelligence failure' are now convinced of it."

The following is an excerpt from an article on November 10, 2010 Los Angeles Times along with my comments (in red) on the article as stated by George W.
The former president delivers an unexpectedly engrossing rehash of what he considers to be the pivotal moments of his eight years in office.

Nearly midway through "Decision Points," Bush writes that, "History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarize my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it."

The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...

No doubt that history will debate the decisions George W. has made. Unfortunately for him, history will not be so kind. As George W. states, the "most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it". He is referring to the 7 1/2 years without another successful terrorist attack. Pardon me George W. but most presidents in history have prevented terrorist attacks. Some were not so lucky, and neither were you. The only difference here is that because of your failure to act, the terrorists had the opportunity to strike. Mr. George W. you knew about the possibility of an attack.

Here is the proof, and I plan to publish articles to prove it..

Bush Knew AND Bush lied before and after 9/11: White House quietly acknowledged that the threats are not urgent and that they are partly motivated by political objectives. Hosni Mubarek, the recently deposed leader of Egypt also warned Bush of an imminent attack just 12 days before Sept. 11, 2001. We now know that Bush and his supporters knew that the terrorist attack was coming, and we're learning more every day about just how much they really knew. Bush's people spent quite a bit of time trying to blame the FBI, CIA, and others for either massive intelligence failures, or a failure to more fully inform Bush, or both. Additionally, Cheney advised Bush not to hand over any of the intelligence briefings prior to September 11, 2001, he has also refused to cooperate with the idea of convening an independent commission to investigate those terrible events.

Bush is singularly unapologetic and clear about the fact that he personally ordered the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks. (Bush also continues to insist that water-boarding is not torture.) When then-CIA Director George Tenet asked whether he had permission to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, Bush replied, "Damn right." Bush writes that about 100 "terrorists" were placed in the CIA interrogation program and that about a third "were questioned using enhanced interrogation"; three were water-boarded. All, according to Bush, gave up usable intelligence that thwarted other acts of terrorism. Other reports have contradicted that assertion, but Bush is firm on the point.

The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...

The fact that George W. did personally order the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks, it another reason why George W's. torture methods should be used on him, so that America can find out exactly what he knew. Of course, Barack Obama has more common sense, and torture and water-boarding will not be used on Bush. Still, he did know about the possible attacks but will not admit to it, rather he unquestionably claims credit for no other future attacks. He says that is his greatest accomplishment. All of his failures that he cannot hide could have all been accomplishments, for example, helping the people of New Orleans overcome the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, instead of not doing much to help the flooded city. I can go on and on here.

Similarly, he writes that his stomach still churns over the fact that he and the rest of the country were misled by faulty intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but that the nation and world still are better off with the Iraqi dictator deposed. His only real regret, in fact, is that he failed to act more rapidly and decisively when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

The following is a comment by the Editor 'Bush Decision Points' regarding Bush's statement above...

George W. feels he was misled, and for this I'll give him the 'shadow of a doubt'. But I truly believe that George W. had more motives and in a sense, allowed the 911 attacks to happen because then he wanted to show the country he could take control and muster up an offensive against Saddam Hussein. George W. and the CIA definitely knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, but he needed a reason to retaliate against a man who caused his father so many problems concerning Kuwait, that he decided to take the matter up under his watch and finish what his father started. What a prime opportune time to get the country to back you in an attack after the event of 911. President George W. used the American people.

George W. feels that because the Iraqi dictator is gone, the nation and the world is better off today. That may be the case, but did that give him the right to carry on what his father George H.W. started, and that was to continue to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens to get to one man?! To be a commander and chief with those notions, it's almost hard to believe that he didn't start a world war. Tensions in the Middle East during his Presidency were at a 'boiling point', and it wouldn't have taken much to get countries to retaliate against the United States. As far as hurricane Katrina goes, at least he does admit fault for not acting rapidly and decisively. The only problem with that statement is that during his whole 8 years as president, he failed to act rapidly and decisively on most every domestic front, because he was too busy concentrating on his self made war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.

Washington (CNN) -- Charge George W. Bush with war crimes?

Some Bush critics have for years demanded a prosecution of the former president. They had hoped that the incoming Obama administration would put Bush on trial. No luck.

Now they have changed their focus, filing actions in foreign courts. Last week, these Bush opponents filed an action in Switzerland in advance of a Bush appearance at a charity fundraiser in Geneva.

Shortly after the filing, the Bush appearance was canceled. Bush is in no danger of going to a Swiss jail, obviously. But it's important that all Americans understand: This use of law as a weapon of politics is an assault upon the basic norms of American constitutional democracy.

American presidents are subject to law, of course: American law.

In the case of torture -- the offense of which Bush's critics accuse the president -- the relevant law is the War Crimes Act of 1996, which provides penalties up to the death penalty for abuse of military detainees.

This law was adopted in conformity with U.S. obligations under the 1986 Convention Against Torture, which called upon all signatory states to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law." (It's often said that the convention "bans" torture, but that is not correct: It creates an obligation on member states to ban torture by their own nationals.)

This use of law as a weapon of politics is an assault upon the basic norms of American constitutional democracy.--David Frum

In 2001, Bush asked government lawyers: What exactly constitutes "torture" under U.S. law? Is isolation torture? Sleep deprivation? What about putting an insect in the cell of a prisoner frightened of insects? How about waterboarding?

Bush asked those questions precisely because he wanted to comply with the law. He wanted to go up to the limit of the law, but not beyond. That's why he wished to know where the limits were found.

The legal answers Bush got -- and the methods his administration used -- have divided Americans for almost a decade. Republicans lost the 2008 election, and the Obama administration changed policy. Which is how we decide policy questions in the United States: by elections and alterations of government.

When it entered office, the Obama administration considered prosecuting the CIA officers who had done the interrogations. It seems to have considered legal action against higher-ranking officials, too. The Obama administration rejected both options.

So when people file actions in Switzerland against Bush, it's not merely the former president they are targeting. They are targeting the entire American legal system. They are demanding that Switzerland override an American decision about which Americans should be prosecuted for violating an American law.

They want Switzerland to say the following:

"We disagree with your attorney general's interpretation of your War Crimes Act. We are therefore arresting you in Switzerland for acts you ordered in the United States against armed military enemies of the United States.

"We will put you on trial in Switzerland, where none of the protections of the U.S. Constitution apply. Instead, you will be tried according to the rules of Swiss law -- even though you had no vote in the making of that law and have no legal representation in the Swiss government.

"Admittedly, none of the acts here have any legal connection to Switzerland at all. None of the people involved are Swiss, neither the alleged torturers nor the alleged torturees. Our involvement is purely coincidental; this action could just as easily have been brought in Luxembourg or Uruguay."

In other words, what the people bringing actions against Bush are calling for is a new kind of global legal regime in which law is severed from political representation. Call it human rights without democracy.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

In a classified document, there is proof that the United States approved of Saddam Hussein's Kuwait Invasion. Then in an effort to discredit Saddam Hussein, President George H.W. Bush orders an invasion of Iraq which triggered hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians caught in the fire and bombings by the United States of various facilities in Iraq.

(The intention of this blog was not to discredit the service of President George H.W. Bush, the senior President, but to specifically highlight issues centered about George W. Bush. If incidents stated by Congressman Ron Paul on January 11, 2011 are true, then President George H.W. Bush led the way to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan )

But with the evidence below, it is clear that George W. Bush continued with what his father George H.W. Bush started, which was so far to date a '20-year war' as outlined by Congressman Ron Paul. Immediately below, is the transcript of Ron Paul, as he recently addressed the Senate in a 5-minute time frame. Because of the time restraint, he was unable to deliver the 'meat and potatoes' of his speech, which contains damaging evidence towards George H.W. Bush. (The complete transcript of his speech, including what he did not have time to say is included in the transcript, along with George H.W.Bush's announcement to invade Iraq in 1991.

HOW THE 20-YEAR WAR STARTED

ANOTHER “WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY”PROVEN TRUE….

Editor’s note: Though Ron Paul totally sidesteps his previous statements on 9/11 and the role of Israel and its friends in both conflicts, choosing instead to push blame on to the Republican party and a cabal of oil companies, there are telling facts to be gleaned from the Wikileak cable meant to discredit the United States. When a reasonable and acute thinker quickly comes to the conclusion that the influence of Israel is far greater in Washington than any oil company and the rationale for targeting Iraq served only the strategic interests of Israeli expansionism and was not, in any way, related to accessing oil openly available on the world market, we can escape the artifices of Mr. Assange and his handlers along with the “soft soap” of Ron Paul and his “kow-tow” to AIPAC.”

[Congressional Record: January 26, 2011 (House)] [Page H503]

“The SPEAKER pro tempore.

Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started?

It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.

Amazingly, the released cable was entitled,

“Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.” (published below)

In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that “the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.” As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq’s ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, “we took no position on these Arab affairs.”

There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn’t surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.

The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.

{time} 1440

The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction–not to mention the financial costs–these past 20 years.

Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula–and in particular Saudi Arabia–was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals (sic) who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day.

Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.

The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war–a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day.

The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo- conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end.

Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves.

But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government’s lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.”

THE FOLLOWING WAS LEFT OUT OF HIS SPEECH, BECAUSE RON PAUL ONLY HAD 5 MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND RAN OUT OF TIME....

Historian Mark Zepezauer notes that the equipment to slant drill Iraq’s oil illegally was bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft’s old company. Kuwait was pumping out around $14-billion worth of oil from beneath Iraqi territory. “Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq’s. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it’s certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast,” writes Zepezauer.

Iraq invaded Kuwait after it broke off negotiations.

Bush and the United Nations ordered the systematic destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq on January 16, 1991, at 6:30 p.m. EST.

Bush ordered 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a report sent to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.

“The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq’s infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq’s civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities,” Ramsey Clarke and others wrote in 1992. “The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.”

The invasion, enforced blockade of Iraq and the international sanctions which decimated the war-ravaged country for over a decade prepared the people of Iraq for the transformation their modern state into a hellhole now wracked by sectarian violence.

Over 500,000 people were slaughtered in Bush’s war. Between 1991 and 1998, there were 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children under five years of age due to brutal sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations. “If you include adults, the figure is now almost certainly well over a million,” Hans Von Sponeck said. Sponeck was a UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.

Bush’s son re-invaded Iraq under completely bogus circumstances. George Bush Junior killed or contributed to the death of more than 1.4 million human beings, according toJust Foreign Policy. “Iraq deaths. The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003,” they write.

The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count… The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion. This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.

And yet Bush and his son are considered by the establishment and millions of Americans to be esteemed elder statesmen, not war criminals.

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 05 BAGHDAD 04237
E.O. 12356: DECL:OADR
TAGS: MOPSPRELUSKUIZ
SUBJECT: SADDAM'S MESSAGE OF FRIENDSHIP TO PRESIDENT BUSH
Â¶1. SECRET - ENTIRE TEXT.
Â¶2. SUMMARY: SADDAM TOLD THE AMBASSADOR JULY 25
THAT MUBARAK HAS ARRANGED FOR KUWAITI AND IRAQI
DELEGATIONS TO MEET IN RIYADH, AND THEN ON
JULY 28, 29 OR 30, THE KUWAITI CROWN PRINCE WILL
COME TO BAGHDAD FOR SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS. "NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN" BEFORE THEN, SADDAM HAD PROMISED
MUBARAK.
--SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE. IRAQ IS SICK OF WAR, BUT KUWAIT
HAS IGNORED DIPLOMACY. USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE
WILL ENCOURAGE THE UAE AND KUWAIT TO IGNORE
CONVENTIONAL DIPLOMACY. IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY
HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO "RESPOND," HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF
DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE.
--ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE EXPLICIT, SADDAM'S MESSAGE
TO US SEEMED TO BE THAT HE WILL MAKE A MAJOR PUSH
TO COOPERATE WITH MUBARAK'S DIPLOMACY, BUT WE MUST
TRY TO UNDERSTAND KUWAITI/UAE "SELFISHNESS" IS
UNBEARABLE. AMBASSADOR MADE CLEAR THAT WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN
PEACEFUL MEANS. END SUMMARY.
Â¶3. AMBASSADOR WAS SUMMONED BY PRESIDENT
SADDAM HUSAYN AT NOON JULY 25. ALSO PRESENT
WERE FONMIN AZIZ, THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE
DIRECTOR, TWO NOTETAKERS, AND THE IRAQI
INTERPRETER.
Â¶4. SADDAM, WHOSE MANNER WAS CORDIAL,
REASONABLE AND EVEN WARM THROUGHOUT THE ENSUING
TWO HOURS, SAID HE WISHED THE AMBASSADOR TO
CONVEY A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH. SADDAM
THEN RECALLED IN DETAIL THE HISTORY OF IRAQ'S
DECISION TO REESTABLISH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
AND ITS POSTPONING IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT
DECISION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR, RATHER THAN BE
THOUGHT WEAK AND NEEDY. HE THEN SPOKE ABOUT THE
MANY "BLOWS" OUR RELATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
SINCE 1984, CHIEF AMONG THEM IRANGATE. IT WAS
AFTER THE FAW VICTORY, SADDAM SAID, THAT IRAQI
MISAPPREHENSIONS ABOUT USG PURPOSES BEGAN TO
SURFACE AGAIN, I.E., SUSPICIONS THAT THE U.S. WAS
NOT HAPPY TO SEE THE WAR END.
Â¶5. PICKING HIS WORDS WITH CARE, SADDAM SAID
THAT THERE ARE "SOME CIRCLES" IN THE USG,
INCLUDING IN CIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
BUT EMPHATICALLY EXCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND
SECRETARY BAKER, WHO ARE NOT FRIENDLY TOWARD
IRAQ-U.S. RELATIONS. HE THEN LISTED WHAT HE
SEEMED TO REGARD AS FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS
CONCLUSION: "SOME CIRCLES ARE GATHERING
INFORMATION ON WHO MIGHT BE SADDAM HUSAYN'S
SUCCESSOR;" THEY KEPT UP CONTACTS IN THE GULF
WARNING AGAINST IRAQ; THEY WORKED TO ENSURE
NO HELP WOULD GO TO IRAQ (READ EXIM AND CCC).
Â¶6. IRAQ, THE PRESIDENT STRESSED, IS IN SERIOUS
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, WITH 40 BILLION USD DEBTS.
IRAQ, WHOSE VICTORY IN THE WAR AGAINST IRAN
MADE AN HISTORIC DIFFERENCE TO THE ARAB WORLD
AND THE WEST, NEEDS A MARSHALL PLAN. BUT "YOU
WANT THE OIL PRICE DOWN," SADDAM CHARGED.
Â¶7. RESUMING HIS LIST OF GRIEVANCES WHICH HE
BELIEVED WERE ALL INSPIRED BY
"SOME CIRCLES" IN THE USG, HE RECALLED THE
"USIA CAMPAIGN" AGAINST HIMSELF, AND THE
GENERAL MEDIA ASSAULT ON IRAQ AND ITS PRESIDENT.
Â¶8. DESPITE ALL THESE BLOWS, SADDAM SAID, AND
ALTHOUGH "WE WERE SOMEWHAT ANNOYED," WE STILL
HOPED THAT WE COULD DEVELOP A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
BUT THOSE WHO FORCE OIL PRICES DOWN ARE ENGAGING
IN ECONOMIC WARFARE AND IRAQ CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH
A TRESPASS ON ITS DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY.
Â¶9. THE SPEARHEADS (FOR THE USG) HAVE BEEN KUWAIT
AND THE UAE, SADDAM SAID. SADDAM SAID CAREFULLY
THAT JUST AS IRAQ WILL NOT THREATEN OTHERS, IT
WILL ACCEPT NO THREAT AGAINST ITSELF. "WE HOPE
THE USG WILL NOT MISUNDERSTAND:" IRAQ ACCEPTS,
AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN SAID, THAT ANY
COUNTRY MAY CHOOSE ITS FRIENDS. BUT THE USG KNOWS
THAT IT WAS IRAQ, NOT THE USG, WHICH DECISIVELY
PROTECTED THOSE USG FRIENDS DURING THE WAR--AND THAT
IS UNDERSTANDABLE SINCE PUBLIC OPINION IN THE USG,
TO SAY NOTHING OF GEOGRAPHY, WOULD HAVE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AMERICANS TO ACCEPT 10,000 DEAD
IN A SINGLE BATTLE, AS IRAQ DID.
Â¶10. SADDAM ASKED WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE USG
TO ANNOUNCE IT IS COMMITTED TO THE DEFENSE OF
ITS FRIENDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.
ANSWERING HIS OWN QUESTION, HE SAID THAT TO IRAQ
IT MEANS FLAGRANT BIAS AGAINST THE GOI.
Â¶11. COMING TO ONE OF HIS MAIN POINTS, SADDAM
ARGUED THAT USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE AND KUWAIT (SIC)
ENCOURAGED THEM IN THEIR UNGENEROUS POLICIES. THE
IRAQI RIGHTS, SADDAM EMPHASIZED, WILL BE RESTORED
ONE BY ONE, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MUCH
MORE THAN A YEAR. IRAQ HOPES THE USG WILL BE
IN HARMONY WITH ALL THE PARTIES TO THIS DISPUTE.
Â¶12. SADDAM SAID HE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE USG IS
DETERMINED TO KEEP THE OIL FLOWING AND TO
MAINTAIN ITS FRIENDSHIPS IN THE GULF. WHAT HE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS WHY WE ENCOURAGE THOSE WHO
ARE DAMAGING IRAQ, WHICH IS WHAT OUR GULF MANEUVERS
WILL DO.
Â¶13. SADDAM SAID HE FULLY BELIEVES THE USG WANTS
PEACE, AND THAT IS GOOD. BUT DO NOT, HE ASKED,
USE METHODS WHICH YOU SAY YOU DO NOT LIKE,
METHODS LIKE ARM-TWISTING-
Â¶14. AT THIS POINT SADDAM SPOKE AT LENGTH ABOUT
PRIDE OF IRAQIS, WHO BELIEVE IN "LIBERTY OR DEATH."
IRAQ WILL HAVE TO RESPOND IF THE U.S. USES THESE
METHODS. IRAQ KNOWS THE USG CAN SEND PLANES AND
ROCKETS AND HURT IRAQ DEEPLY. SADDAM ASKS THAT
THE USG NOT FORCE IRAQ TO THE POINT OF HUMILIATION
AT WHICH LOGIC MUST BE DISREGARDED. IRAQ DOES NOT
CONSIDER THE U.S. AN ENEMY AND HAS TRIED TO BE
FRIENDS.
Â¶15. AS FOR THE INTRA-ARAB DISPUTES, SADDAM SAID
HE IS NOT ASKING THE USG TO TAKE UP ANY PARTICULAR
ROLE SINCE THE SOLUTIONS MUST COME THROUGH ARAB
AND BILATERAL DIPLOMACY.
Â¶16. RETURNING TO HIS THEME THAT IRAQ WANTS
DIGNITY AND FREEDOM AS WELL AS FRIENDSHIP WITH THE
U.S., HE CHARGED THAT IN THE LAST YEAR THERE WERE
MANY OFFICIAL STATEMENTS WHICH MADE IT SEEM THAT
THE U.S. DOES NOT WANT TO RECIPROCATE. HOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, SADDAM ASKED,CAN WE INTERPRET THE
INVITATION FOR ARENS TO VISIT AT A TIME OF CRISIS
IN THE GULF? WHY DID THE U.S- DEFENSE MINISTER
MAKE "INFLAMMATORY" STATEMENTS?
Â¶17. SADDAM SAID THAT THE IRAQIS KNOW WHAT
WAR IS, WANT NO MORE OF IT--"DO NOT PUSH US TO IT;
DO NOT MAKE IT THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH WHICH WE
CAN PROTECT OUR DIGNITY."
Â¶18. PRESIDENT BUSH, SADDAM SAID, HAS MADE NO MISTAKE
IN HIS PRESIDENCY VIS-A-VIS THE ARABS. THE DECISION
ON THE PLO DIALOGUE WAS "MISTAKEN," BUT IT WAS
TAKEN UNDER "ZIONIST PRESSURE" AND, SADDAM SAID, IS
PERHAPS A CLEVER TACTIC TO ABSORB THAT PRESSURE.
Â¶19. AFTER A SHORT DIVERSION ON THE NEED FOR THE
U.S. TO CONSIDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF 200,000
ARABS WITH THE SAME VIGOR AND INTEREST AS THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE ISRAELIS, SADDAM CONCLUDED BY
RESTATING THAT IRAQ WANTS AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP
"ALTHOUGH WE WILL NOT PANT FOR IT, WE WILL DO OUR
PART AS FRIENDS."
Â¶20. SADDAM THEN OFFERED AN ANECDOTE TO ILLUSTRATE
HIS POINT. HE HAD TOLD THE IRAQI KURDISH LEADER
IN 1974 THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO GIVE UP HALF OF
THE SHATT AL-ARAB TO IRAN TO OBTAIN ALL OF A
PROSPEROUS IRAQ. THE KURD HAD BET THAT SADDAM WOULD
NOT GIVE HALF THE SHATT--THE KURD WAS WRONG. EVEN
NOW, THE ONLY REAL ISSUE WITH IRAN IS THE SHATT, AND
IF GIVING AWAY HALF OF THE WATERWAY IS THE ONLY
THING STANDING BETWEEN THE CURRENT SITUATION AND
IRAQI PROSPERITY, SADDAM SAID HE WOULD BE GUIDED
BY WHAT HE DID IN 1974.
Â¶21. THE AMBASSADOR THANKED SADDAM FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS DIRECTLY WITH HIM SOME OF
HIS AND OUR CONCERNS. PRESIDENT BUSH, TOO, WANTS
FRIENDSHIP, AS HE HAD WRITTEN AT THE 'ID AND ON
THE OCCASION OF IRAQ'S NATIONAL DAY. SADDAM
INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE HAD BEEN TOUCHED BY THOSE
Â¶22. AMBASSADOR RESUMED HER THEME, RECALLING THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD INSTRUCTED HER TO BROADEN AND
DEEPEN OUR RELATIONS WITH IRAQ. SADDAM HAD REFERRED
TO "SOME CIRCLES" ANTIPATHETIC TO THAT AIM. SUCH
CIRCLES CERTAINLY EXISTED, BUT THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION
IS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT. ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE AMERICAN PRESS;
IF HE DID, CRITICISM OF THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT
EXIST. SADDAM AGAIN INTERRUPTED TO SAY HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE HAD SEEN THE DIANE
SAWYER SHOW AND THOUGHT THAT IT WAS CHEP AND UNFAIR.
BUT THE AMERICAN PRESS TREATS ALL POLITICIANS
WITHOUT KID GLOVES--THAT IS OUR WAY.
Â¶23. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
VERY RECENTLY REAFFIRMED HIS DESIRE FOR A BETTER
RELATIONSHIP AND HAS PROVEN THAT BY, FOR EXAMPLE,
OPPOSING SANCTIONS BILLS. HERE SADDAM INTERRUPTED
AGAIN. LAUGHING, HE SAID THERE IS NOTHING LEFT
FOR IRAQ TO BUY IN THE U.S. EVERYTHING IS
PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR WHEAT, AND NO DOUBT THAT WILL
SOON BE DECLARED A DUAL-USE ITEM- SADDAM SAID, HOWEVER,
HE HAD DECIDED NOT TO RAISE THIS ISSUE, BUT RATHER
CONCENTRATE ON THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES AT HAND.
Â¶24. AMBASSADOR SAID THERE WERE MANY ISSUES HE
HAD RAISED SHE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, BUT
SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE
PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH'S DESIRE
FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED
WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE MID
EAST. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED
WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH
SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE
EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION, AND THEN WE
LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD
HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER? IS IT NOT REASONABLE
FOR US TO ASK, IN THE SPIRIT OF FRIENDSHIP, NOT
CONFRONTATION, THE SIMPLE QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOUR
INTENTIONS?
Â¶25. SADDAM SAID THAT WAS INDEED A REASONABLE
QUESTION. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONCERNED FOR REGIONAL PEACE, IN FACT IT IS OUR
DUTY AS A SUPERPOWER. "BUT HOW CAN WE MAKE THEM
(KUWAIT AND UAE) UNDERSTAND HOW DEEPLY WE ARE
SUFFERING." THE FINANCIAL SITUATION IS SUCH THAT
THE PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS WILL HAVE
TO BE CUT. AT THIS POINT, THE INTERPRETER AND
ONE OF THE NOTETAKERS BROKE DOWN AND WEPT.
Â¶26. AFTER A PAUSE FOR RECUPERATION, SADDAM SAID,
IN EFFECT, BELIEVE ME I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING: WE
SENT ENVOYS, WROTE MESSAGES, ASKED FAHD TO
ARRANGE QUADRAPARTITE SUMMIT (IRAQ, SAG, UE,
KUWAIT). FAHD SUGGESTFD OIL MINISTERS INSTEAD AND
WE AGREED TO THE JEDDAH AGREEMENT ALTHOUGH IT WAS
WELL BELOW OUR HOPES. THEN, SADDAM CONTINUED,
TWO DAYS LATER THE KUWAITI OIL MINISTER ANNOUNCED
HE WOULD WANT TO ANNUL THAT AGREEMENT WITHIN TWO
MONTHS. AS FOR THE UAE, SADDAM SAID, I BEGGED
SHAYKH ZAYID TO UNDERSTAND OUR PROBLEMS (WHEN
SADDAM ENTERTAINED HIM IN MOSUL AFTER THE BAGHDAD
SUMMIT), AND ZAYID SAID JUST WAIT UNTIL I GET
BACK TO ABU DHABI. BUT THEN HIS MINISTER OF OIL
MADE "BAD STATEMENTS."
Â¶27. AT THIS POINT, SADDAM LEFT THE ROOM TO TAKE
AN URGENT CALL FROM MUBARAK. AFTER HIS RETURN,
THE AMBASSADOR ASKED IF HE COULD TELL HER IF
THERE HAS ANY PROGRESS IN FINDING A PEACEFUL WAY
TO DEFUSE THE DISPUTE. THIS WAS SOMETHING PRESIDENT
BUSH WOULD BE KEENLY INTERESTED TO KNOW. SADDAM
SAID THAT HE HAD JUST LEARNED FROM MUBARAK THE
KUWAITIS HAVE AGREED TO NEGOTIATE. THE KUWAITI
CROWN PRINCE/PRIME MINISTER WOULD MEET IN RIYADH
WITH SADDAM'S NUMBER TWO, IZZAT IBRAHIM, AND THEN
THE KUWAITI WOULD COME TO BAGHDAD ON SATURDAY,
SUNDAY OR, AT THE LATEST, MONDAY, JULY 30.
Â¶28. "I TOLD MUBARAK," SADDAM SAID, THAT "NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN UNTIL THE MEETING," AND NOTHING WILL
HAPPEN DURING OR AFTER THE MEETING IF THE KUWAITIS
WILL AT LAST "GIVE US SOME HOPE."
Â¶29. THE AMBASSADOR SAID SHE WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR
THIS GOOD NEWS. SADDAM THEN ASKED HER TO CONVEY
HIS WARM GREETINGS TO PRESIDENT BUSH AND TO
CONVEY HIS MESSAGE TO HIM.
Â¶30. NOTE: ON THE BORDER QUESTION, SADDAM REFERRED
TO THE 1961 AGREEMENT AND A "LINE OF PATROL" IT
HAD ESTABLISHED. THE KUWAITIS, HE SAID, HAD TOLD
MUBARAK IRAQ WAS 20 KILOMETERS "IN FRONT" OF THIS
LINE. THE AMBASSADOR SAID THAT SHE HAD SERVED IN
KUWAIT 20 YEARS BEFORE; THEN, AS NOW, WE TOOK NO
POSITION ON THESE ARAB AFFAIRS.
Â¶31. COMMENT: IN THE MEMORY QF THE CURRENT
DIPLOMATIC CORPS, SADDAM HAS NEVER SUMMONED AN
AMBASSADOR. HE IS WORRIED.
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN POLITICAL THEORIZING
(U.S. THE SOLE MAJOR POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST),
HE NEEDS AT A MINIMUM A CORRECT RELATIONSHIP
WITH US FOR OBVIOUS GEOPOLITICAL REASONS,
ESPECIALLY AS LONG AS HE PERCEIVES MORTAL
THREATS FROM ISRAEL AND IRAN. AMBASSADOR
BELIEVES SADDAM SUSPECTS OUR DECISION SUDDENLY
TO UNDERTAKE MANEUVERS WITH ABU DHABI IS A
HARBINGER OF A USG DECISION TO TAKE SIDES.
FURTHER, SADDAM, HIMSELF BEGINNING TO HAVE AN
INKLING OF HOW MUCH HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT
THE U.S., IS APPREHENSIVE THAT WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND CERTAIN POLITICAL FACTORS WHICH
INHIBIT HIM, SUCH AS:
--HE CANNOT ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE PERCEIVED AS
CAVING IN TO SUPERPOWER BULLYING (AS U/S HAMDUN
FRANKLY WARNED US IN LATE 1988);
--IRAQ, WHICH LOST 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES, IS
SUFFERING AND KUWAIT IS "MISERLY" AND "SELFISH."
Â¶32. IT WAS PROGRESS TO HAVE SADDAM ADMIT
THAT THE USG HAS A "RESPONSIBILITY" IN THE
REGION, AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EXPECT AN
ANSWER WHEN WE ASK IRAQ'S INTENTIONS. HIS
RESPONSE IN EFFECT THAT HE TRIED VARIOUS
DIPLOMATIC/CHANNELS BEFORE RESORTING TO
UNADULTERATED INTIMIDATION HAS AT LEAST THE
VIRTUE OF FRANKNESS. HIS EMPHASIS THAT HE
WANTS PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT IS SURELY SINCERE
(IRAQIS ARE SICK OF WAR), BUT THE TERMS SOUND
DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. SADDAM SEEMS TO WANT
PLEDGES NOW ON OIL PRICES AND PRODUCTION TO
COVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS.
GLASPIE

Immediately below, George Bush Senior announces his invasion of Iraq in 1991. The war was not declared by Congress as stipulated by the Constitution. It was an executive action by Bush and the globalists with the participation of the United Nations.